7 ms·

Applause For Finland: First Country To Make Broadband Access A Legal Right

26 points by transburgh 17y ago

jrmurad 17y ago
What good is broadband access without some kind of computer? Do Finns have a "right" to computers too? If some Finn chooses to live in a remote area of the country, must he be provided with broadband? By whom? How? Or else what (the provider is forced out of business and won't be providing access to anyone)? (I haven't read the law in question. Perhaps it answers these questions.) Why stop with broadband? Providing it will make Internet-geeks "applaud." What other so-called "rights" can we invent which are incumbent upon the action of others? A right to instruments [culture is good]? Musicians might applaud. A right to sports equipment [fitness is good]? Athletes. Etc. Tell me, what's the difference?
- amalcon 17y ago
  The use of the term "right" is misleading, but I'll chalk it up to politics as usual. This is really just an infrastructure project dressed up to look like a humanitarian bill. It makes a better comparison to the American interstate highway system, or perhaps to a library system, than to a right to trained legal representation.
- Radix 17y ago
  Let me play devil's advocate for the difference between this and your other examples. The difference is that internet is infrastructure. It allows other systems to exist, and allows the government to require citizens to interact with it online. Thus it is most like a postal system, rather than instruments, or sports equipment. Having said that, I agree with you, and taking into account my above thoughts, I still think it is out of place as I like the positive-negative rights theory.
- enra 17y ago
  I think is important it's made a legal right so companies or other agents can't take your connection away easily, like the 'Three Strikes Law' is trying to do in France. Second, it means that service providers are forced to provide somekind of access to all areas. Usually in urban areas this means a broadband and in extreme rural areas somekind of mobile or wireless access. Third, there is some confusion in TC comments, but this doesn't mean that the connection will be free, just that it has to be available to almost every residence. Anyway this doesn't change things much in Finland. I think we already have broadband almost everywhere, this just ensures that the situation won't change in the future.
  - byrneseyeview 17y ago
    There is a cost to providing Internet access in rural areas. Should this cost be borne by the people who choose to live in those places, or by everybody else? Has there ever been a time when making everybody pay for an individual's mistakes -- whether the mistake is getting pregnant at 15 or buying AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities -- has been the right thing to do?
    - scott_s 17y ago
      Making everyone pay makes sense when doing nothing ends up costing society more.
    - enra 17y ago
      You have a point there, so the cost is shared by the people who live in rural areas (by paying relative higher rates for less bandwidth) and by the service provider, and therefore by all customers. Also there has been some discussions about how goverment could invest to the infrastructure and take some of the costs. Anyway I think this is good since it can actually save some money in the long run. We already have many goverment services that you can use over the internet which saves taxpayers' money and makes everyone's life more productive.
    - grhino 17y ago
      Can a nation thrive with all citizens living in urban areas? The internet is becoming the main way to disseminate information. I'd rather folks in rural areas have access to broadband. Libraries and broadband access are important to providing education opportunities and to spread culture and ideas throughout a nation, and I'm willing to subsidize that for people living in rural areas.
      - lionhearted 17y ago
        Serious question, not being facetious: > ... I'm willing to subsidize that for people living in rural areas. I'm not willing to do that. What are you willing to do to me for refusing? Arrest me? Shoot me?
laut 17y ago
So called "positive rights" like that are bad. If you want broadband and don't want to pay for it, you are basically saying that your neighbors should work as slaves to provide it. In that if they don't, they are violating your right. Rights should only be negative, i.e. things you have the right for other people not to do to you. Basically protection of your property rights including your own body. No theft, murder, stealing, rape, fraud etc. Not only do I personally believe positive rights are wrong, they cannot logically be upheld without breaking the negative rights.
- wmeredith 17y ago
  I came here to say this, but you stated it much more eloquently than I could have; thanks.
- nobody_nowhere 17y ago
  Is freedom of speech a positive right or a negative right, in that sense?
  - pelle 17y ago
    The key to understanding negative or positive rights is that it is seen from the point of view of the government. Freedom of speech is a negative right as it specifically disallows the government from censoring you.
    - nobody_nowhere 17y ago
      Hm. It seems like a tricky distinction. What about the 6th amendment? It seems like that gives me the positive right to a trial by jury. The viewpoint seems to be the reverse of how rights are expressed in the bill of rights, where they're all described from the point of view of the 'end user'. [edit: many, not all in the bill of rights]
      - steamer25 17y ago
        I haven't heard the phrase 'positive' and 'negative' rights before but this is how I understand it: If we were to wash ashore on a desert island, everyone could do whatever they wanted. Inevitably, some people would start to harm each other. The harmed would then gang up to overthrow those who started the fight. The gang is called government and it's members agree to renounce some of their rights to grant it _powers_. Fearing that the gang itself would turn into another oppressor the members wisely choose to limit the newfound powers to only apply against those who initiate force. Thus the purpose and scope of government is maximize the rights of individuals by delineating the boundaries between my rights and yours. I do not have the right to force you to provide me with broadband because you have your own rights. I agree that I do not have this right because I consent to maintaining some government. Another limitation on the power granted to government is that illegitimate force is defined by the people--not the government. The government is an employee of the people that has to check in every so often. If I don't like that you won't take a shovel, dig up a trench to my house and some copper to fill it; I can't extort it from you by accusing you of stealing my car so that the government will punish you on my say-so. This is where juries come in--part of the eternal vigilance we pay to retain freedom. If we as a people want the government to punish wrong-doing, we have to sign off on it. We agree to do it on a case by case basis because we don't trust the police or judges to not abuse their position in any given case. It's another part of the rights that we delegate to create the powers.
karteek 17y ago
A Finnish friend of mine told me: Article forgot to mention that every household will be taxed for around 175€/year; known as TV/Internet Tax. Independently if TV or Internet is used in that household…
- nixy 17y ago
  Will that be the only charge then, or is this in addition to the operator/ISP charges?
- enra 17y ago
  It's actually known as Media Tax, which is revamped version of the old TV/Radio Tax, where TV owners had to pay about 225€/year. The tax is used for funding the Finnish Broadcasting Company(YLE) and the tv-infrastructure. Most people opposed the tax, since not everyone watch TV anymore and they're not happy how it's used, for example buying HBO shows and producing soap operas instead of some quality programs like BBC does.
tseabrooks 17y ago
This is completely absurd. People should not be given rights that require someone provide something for them. Surely, the problem with believing someone has a 'right' to broadband internet access they should also have a right to a computer, or a television, or cable.
- gloob 17y ago
  People should not be given rights that require someone provide something for them. I read: "People should not be given rights to trial by jury or elections". The former requires that random citizens be selected to give up their time for my sake. The latter requires that random government-types go out of their way to organize the whole bloody thing, which is both extraordinarily expensive and inconvenient. Both "require someone provide something for them". Edit: For that matter, what about universal education, as well? I know the above is clearly not what you intended. Nonetheless, it follows logically from your statements. Perhaps you could clarify your stance?
- Tichy 17y ago
  In Germany people have a right to a television. If you are on social welfare and you don't have a TV, the government will buy one for you (afaik). Some sell it for the extra dough. Maybe it makes sense from the perspective of the government, because they can use TVs to brainwash the masses. But seriously, I think it is an OK move - or it used to be, when TV was more important. These days I would agree that people should be given a computer, as life without internet is severely hampered.

26 points by transburgh 17y ago

What good is broadband access without some kind of computer? Do Finns have a "right" to computers too? If some Finn chooses to live in a remote area of the country, must he be provided with broadband? By whom? How? Or else what (the provider is forced out of business and won't be providing access to anyone)? (I haven't read the law in question. Perhaps it answers these questions.) Why stop with broadband? Providing it will make Internet-geeks "applaud." What other so-called "rights" can we invent which are incumbent upon the action of others? A right to instruments [culture is good]? Musicians might applaud. A right to sports equipment [fitness is good]? Athletes. Etc. Tell me, what's the difference?

amalcon 17y ago
The use of the term "right" is misleading, but I'll chalk it up to politics as usual. This is really just an infrastructure project dressed up to look like a humanitarian bill. It makes a better comparison to the American interstate highway system, or perhaps to a library system, than to a right to trained legal representation.
Radix 17y ago
Let me play devil's advocate for the difference between this and your other examples. The difference is that internet is infrastructure. It allows other systems to exist, and allows the government to require citizens to interact with it online. Thus it is most like a postal system, rather than instruments, or sports equipment. Having said that, I agree with you, and taking into account my above thoughts, I still think it is out of place as I like the positive-negative rights theory.
enra 17y ago
I think is important it's made a legal right so companies or other agents can't take your connection away easily, like the 'Three Strikes Law' is trying to do in France. Second, it means that service providers are forced to provide somekind of access to all areas. Usually in urban areas this means a broadband and in extreme rural areas somekind of mobile or wireless access. Third, there is some confusion in TC comments, but this doesn't mean that the connection will be free, just that it has to be available to almost every residence. Anyway this doesn't change things much in Finland. I think we already have broadband almost everywhere, this just ensures that the situation won't change in the future.
- byrneseyeview 17y ago
  There is a cost to providing Internet access in rural areas. Should this cost be borne by the people who choose to live in those places, or by everybody else? Has there ever been a time when making everybody pay for an individual's mistakes -- whether the mistake is getting pregnant at 15 or buying AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities -- has been the right thing to do?
  - scott_s 17y ago
    Making everyone pay makes sense when doing nothing ends up costing society more.
  - enra 17y ago
    You have a point there, so the cost is shared by the people who live in rural areas (by paying relative higher rates for less bandwidth) and by the service provider, and therefore by all customers. Also there has been some discussions about how goverment could invest to the infrastructure and take some of the costs. Anyway I think this is good since it can actually save some money in the long run. We already have many goverment services that you can use over the internet which saves taxpayers' money and makes everyone's life more productive.
  - grhino 17y ago
    Can a nation thrive with all citizens living in urban areas? The internet is becoming the main way to disseminate information. I'd rather folks in rural areas have access to broadband. Libraries and broadband access are important to providing education opportunities and to spread culture and ideas throughout a nation, and I'm willing to subsidize that for people living in rural areas.
    - lionhearted 17y ago
      Serious question, not being facetious: > ... I'm willing to subsidize that for people living in rural areas. I'm not willing to do that. What are you willing to do to me for refusing? Arrest me? Shoot me?

laut 17y ago

So called "positive rights" like that are bad. If you want broadband and don't want to pay for it, you are basically saying that your neighbors should work as slaves to provide it. In that if they don't, they are violating your right. Rights should only be negative, i.e. things you have the right for other people not to do to you. Basically protection of your property rights including your own body. No theft, murder, stealing, rape, fraud etc. Not only do I personally believe positive rights are wrong, they cannot logically be upheld without breaking the negative rights.

wmeredith 17y ago
I came here to say this, but you stated it much more eloquently than I could have; thanks.
nobody_nowhere 17y ago
Is freedom of speech a positive right or a negative right, in that sense?
- pelle 17y ago
  The key to understanding negative or positive rights is that it is seen from the point of view of the government. Freedom of speech is a negative right as it specifically disallows the government from censoring you.
  - nobody_nowhere 17y ago
    Hm. It seems like a tricky distinction. What about the 6th amendment? It seems like that gives me the positive right to a trial by jury. The viewpoint seems to be the reverse of how rights are expressed in the bill of rights, where they're all described from the point of view of the 'end user'. [edit: many, not all in the bill of rights]
    - steamer25 17y ago
      I haven't heard the phrase 'positive' and 'negative' rights before but this is how I understand it: If we were to wash ashore on a desert island, everyone could do whatever they wanted. Inevitably, some people would start to harm each other. The harmed would then gang up to overthrow those who started the fight. The gang is called government and it's members agree to renounce some of their rights to grant it _powers_. Fearing that the gang itself would turn into another oppressor the members wisely choose to limit the newfound powers to only apply against those who initiate force. Thus the purpose and scope of government is maximize the rights of individuals by delineating the boundaries between my rights and yours. I do not have the right to force you to provide me with broadband because you have your own rights. I agree that I do not have this right because I consent to maintaining some government. Another limitation on the power granted to government is that illegitimate force is defined by the people--not the government. The government is an employee of the people that has to check in every so often. If I don't like that you won't take a shovel, dig up a trench to my house and some copper to fill it; I can't extort it from you by accusing you of stealing my car so that the government will punish you on my say-so. This is where juries come in--part of the eternal vigilance we pay to retain freedom. If we as a people want the government to punish wrong-doing, we have to sign off on it. We agree to do it on a case by case basis because we don't trust the police or judges to not abuse their position in any given case. It's another part of the rights that we delegate to create the powers.

karteek 17y ago

A Finnish friend of mine told me: Article forgot to mention that every household will be taxed for around 175€/year; known as TV/Internet Tax. Independently if TV or Internet is used in that household…

nixy 17y ago
Will that be the only charge then, or is this in addition to the operator/ISP charges?
enra 17y ago
It's actually known as Media Tax, which is revamped version of the old TV/Radio Tax, where TV owners had to pay about 225€/year. The tax is used for funding the Finnish Broadcasting Company(YLE) and the tv-infrastructure. Most people opposed the tax, since not everyone watch TV anymore and they're not happy how it's used, for example buying HBO shows and producing soap operas instead of some quality programs like BBC does.

tseabrooks 17y ago

This is completely absurd. People should not be given rights that require someone provide something for them. Surely, the problem with believing someone has a 'right' to broadband internet access they should also have a right to a computer, or a television, or cable.

gloob 17y ago
People should not be given rights that require someone provide something for them. I read: "People should not be given rights to trial by jury or elections". The former requires that random citizens be selected to give up their time for my sake. The latter requires that random government-types go out of their way to organize the whole bloody thing, which is both extraordinarily expensive and inconvenient. Both "require someone provide something for them". Edit: For that matter, what about universal education, as well? I know the above is clearly not what you intended. Nonetheless, it follows logically from your statements. Perhaps you could clarify your stance?
Tichy 17y ago
In Germany people have a right to a television. If you are on social welfare and you don't have a TV, the government will buy one for you (afaik). Some sell it for the extra dough. Maybe it makes sense from the perspective of the government, because they can use TVs to brainwash the masses. But seriously, I think it is an OK move - or it used to be, when TV was more important. These days I would agree that people should be given a computer, as life without internet is severely hampered.